Is string theory a failing model? | Eric Weinstein and Brian Greene go head to head again

Eric Weinstein clashes with Brian Greene over string theory's place in physics.
Weinstein is notorious for his stance against the string theory community's toxic culture, previously telling co-founder Michio Kaku he is "out of control". In this tiff with string theorist Brian Greene, Weinstein once again confronts both the culture around string theory and the validity of the model itself.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with...
String theory has been dominant in theoretical physics for thirty years, with more scientific papers arising from it than any other theory. But critics argue the theory has held undue influence and it is an error to pursue it.
Is it time to move on from string theory, recognise that the search for supersymmetry has failed, and seek alternative accounts of the universe that are supported by observation and experiment? Or is the continued dominance of string theory justified by its potential to unify our understanding of the universe once and for all?
#StringTheory #TheoryOfEverythingInTheUniverse #StringParticles
Eric Weinstein is a mathematical physicist and the host of the podcast The Portal. He is the former Managing Director of Thiel Capital in San Francisco and was formerly a Co-Founder and Principal of the Natron Group in Manhattan as well as a Visiting Research Fellow at Oxford University in the Mathematical Institute.
Brian Greene is renowned for his groundbreaking discoveries in superstring theory and best-selling books. He has been chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Do you think the string theory community is problematic? Let us know in the comments below! To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-string-theory?KZbin&+comment

[@josefnavratil646]

No, community is not problematic, but string theory is problematic. Why? Because the strings are produced by the Universe "from the dimensions of space-time" by bending and packaging these dimensions into formations, which then present themselves in the world of physical reality as elementary particles of matter. Then string theory will be correct and beautiful.

[@hajsh67]

Note to all: the full video is locked behind a paywall

[@nosuchthing8]

At least they swapped out angels for dimensions on the head of a pin.

[@brendangreeves3775]

Logic determines that the absolute state is impossible and that change is necessary. A string taken to be a purely abstract, dynamic relative magnitude would seem plausible. Patterns emerge in higher dimensions from one dimension. Generalisation of what is known would seem to be the way to proceed.

[@ObiAdeGaming]

Walling off science behind a paywall is problematic... Unbelievable!

[@besmus4983]

Lol Roger Penrose sitting there like "Why tf did i agree to this? I could be sitting at home right now enjoying a nice cup of tea."

[@sighfly2928]

For a man of that intellect, he may look annoyed, but trust me; he would feel 10x worse if he sat at his home alone.

[@daveinpublic]

@@sighfly2928ok I’ll trust you

[@Mrperson662]

I wish I was smart enough to have an opinion on this

[@AR-tb9hq]

ha! same - to me they all seem way beyond anything I could ever understand

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

I wish other commentators realized this...

[@gogl0l386]

Basically the debate boils down to this. Scientific theories have two functions: explaining the data we have and making new predictions (that if successful should be correct). One would expect that using the scientific method that this would eventually lead to a fundamental theory about how the universe works, but for some reason it is instead that we have two inherently different and incompatible theories: one for small objects and one for big objects. This feels and is considered uncontroversially wrong. Like for example when is something considered "large" and what happens if you have an object that grows from "small" to "large" does the laws for that object just suddenly change? The only thing we have is string theory which explains some of the data and makes no predictions. Always in the past when we have a successful scientific theory it explains all the data and makes a bunch of new correct predictions. So basically those for String theory argue that we haven't had any other theory explaining the data for 100 years so it is worth researching this. And those against it argue that it isn't worth it because it doesn't follow the traits all other successful theories have had.

[@vaibhavk2400]

@@gogl0l386 Well, no. LQG for instance doesn’t even give GR in the semiclassical limit due to Sen’s work. Strings are worth it because of AdS/CFT, and recently a part of a collaboration I’m a part of showed an approach to dS/CFT, which is a stringy notion of our own universe. Hadronic physics has had some nice things, except SUSY, which in its own right explains a lot of the early universe we can physically attribute to. So string theory being “bad” isn’t true at all - only that SUSY hasn’t been found yet, but strings are elegant both mathematically as well as observationally. I am a physicist myself.

[@vaibhavk2400]

@@Daniel-ih4zh Exactly. I’m a physicist and I am absolutely baffled by people who watch a few videos claiming strings sucks

[@raketensven3127]

The problem is that they use the phrase "The problem is.." so much that nobody knows anymore what the problem is.

[@levimaxton6307]

The problem is, "the problem is".

[@antoniohinojos3808]

Theres just alot of problems apparently.

[@dougcoombes8497]

The issue here is string theory has never really been a theory supported by evidence. It is a hypothesis with internally consistent math. The math may be elegant, but if it doesn't make predictions that can be tested, then it isn't a scientific theory.

[@xxyyzz8464]

A solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist. Indeed. To be fair in such criticism, we can say that about many “theories” out there.

[@dougcoombes8497]

@@xxyyzz8464 It originates with S-matrix from the 1940s which was attempting to explain why protons and neutrons are not pointlike particles. Which quantum chromodynamics has successfully explained stating in the 1960s. It's a hypothesis without a home that many still found appealing enough to work on.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

How about pursue string theory because it is beautiful JUST LIKE ANY OTHER FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT? If you are going to advocate shutting down useless stuff, then start by shutting down and outlawing all religion, culture for the sake of culture, entertainment: arts, music, stories, dance. None of THAT is useful.

[@dougcoombes8497]

@@theultimatereductionist7592 People are free to pursue string "theory" as much as they want. They just can't accurately refer to it as a scientific theory when it is not backed up by a firm base of empirical evidence. It was a hypothesis from the 1940s to answer a question about particle physics that has been more than addressed by quantum chromodynamics. It does belong outside of science in philosophy or some other body of human activity.

[@yourinnation5541]

@@theultimatereductionist7592 those things are far more useful for society as they provide entertainment and comfort. String Theory does no such thing except for it's few practitioners.

[@theonetruemorty4078]

I know there's one thing that we can all agree on: Michio Kaku... is out of control.

[@madhatter3492]

Because his reality was ripped apart, as yours will be, look to God.

[@kenclarke5966]

ahahahahahah indubitably.

[@InnerLuminosity]

@@madhatter3492 you are God😉

[@timgonzales2891]

I still don't understand what he meant by that lol. I'm a simple peasant though. That is a hilarious clip though

[@AmsterdamHeavy]

...and has been for 30 years.

[@tixch2000]

I actually experienced this situation while graduating in mathematical physics in Belgium. It was the year 1986 and I wanted to continue the studies towards a PhD. In the dept. there where many groups, but the strongest was string theorists. Proud of their 100s pages calculus which not many understood. I was discouraged to continue physics as it seemed to me so far away from it and I was not so keen in pure math after all. On top of that, no jobs in view...

[@wolfgangkranek376]

Someone said (I believe, they even have researched this), that a wrong scientific theory only dies out, when the generation of scientists adhering to it also have died out because of high age. Most people, including scientists, will never admit, that they wasted their whole live on a wrong idea.

[@kayakMike1000]

Nothing like a wall of mathematics to hide a suspect theory. Perfect camouflage.

[@geometerfpv2804]

Well, no matter which way you cut it, modern physics is extremely mathematical. The math in string theory is the same math in general relativity, were you planning on skipping that, too? I'm just saying: being a physicist means being good at abstract math.

[@tixch2000]

@@geometerfpv2804 Physics is about observing nature and derive the predictive best models from these observations, math or not. Observations changes all the time, so does our models. Maths are one tool (powerful I agree) but not the only one.The rest is intellectual games, or informed intuitions at best, and you might hit a gold stone or not.

[@M2orNot]

@@tixch2000 Pretty much every reputable modern theory relies on a rigorous mathematical model to be able to predict anything with any degree of accuracy, the complexity of which depends on how fundamental the physics are. You can't get away from math if you want to do most, if not all, forms of physics.

[@cronoukie]

anyone else here just thinking, I want to hug Roger Penrose. He reminds me of my grandfather at every family get together. Has lived through life, been through this so many times, he's just enjoying being around the next generation that is starting to do the same. This video gets a like - thanks so much for keeping the conversation going!

[@MeStevely]

After 50 years it's maybe time to take another approach.

[@cristianproust]

Any ideas?

[@joeschmoe2843]

@@cristianproust Slinky theory XD

[@TheVicar]

@@joeschmoe2843 What if steps didn't exist?

[@vaibhavk2400]

Nope. String theory is good enough. I don’t get why the unaware public is trying to speak out on strings just because they saw a couple of videos online.

[@ankansenapati3600]

​@@vaibhavk2400because our tax payer money funding this research and we are stuck nearly for 50 years

[@takashitamagawa5881]

What Sabine Hossenfelder has said particularly stands out: that the test of a theory is whether one gets more out of it than one puts into it. General relativity easily passes this test, as does the basic quantum mechanics established in the early 20th Century. Other theories, such as QED, are less clear cut. String theory seems a distance away from achieving this milestone.

[@varany3376]

That's following Imre Lakatos' idea of a research programme. The programme develops and tests a body of theories, then as long as there are worthwhile tests to carry out ("producing empirical content or novel facts" as Lakatos put it), then the programme is just happily marching along. However, eventually it is exhausted and then either put on a pause or abandoned altogether. The problem is that many scientists are not aware of how the Lakatos framework is supposed to work and instead rely on Popper's notion of naive falsification. As long as they are "not proven wrong" they believe they ought to continue their work, when the real question they should be asking is "Is all this worth my time and efforts?".

[@josehawking5293]

Sabine Rocks!

[@Don.Challenger]

Sabine Hossenfelder also helpfully explains that for fusion technology one must also get more energy out than one initially puts into it, this then suggests that string theory may be a multiverse analogue of fusion power - two universes of intellectual endeavor that as applications of time, intellect, capital and effort soak those resources from every other parallel activity to no discernable positive effect. Will those black holes ever evaporate?

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

How about pursue string theory because it is beautiful JUST LIKE ANY OTHER FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT? If you are going to advocate shutting down useless stuff, then start by shutting down and outlawing all religion, culture for the sake of culture, entertainment: arts, music, stories, dance. None of THAT is useful.

[@dumbfailurekms]

@@Don.Challenger she also calls eric weinstein a dumbass

[@kishan852]

I love how the smartest guy in the room is just sitting there listening lol

[@AliciaGuitar]

That is how he became the smartest

[@andyhammond32]

...i think this is the Whole.lroblem Eric has... The smart people are silent.

[@olartio2185]

They know they spent the last 40 years in ed wittens max security prison

[@neilaspinall5005]

I remember a physics postgrad about 20 years ago complaining that if the research proposal didn't include the words "string theory" then funding would not be forthcoming. The theory has consumed vast quantities of clever people's time, and delivered nothing remotely useful. And worse, has displaced other work to such an extent that Physics generally seems to have delivered nothing of much value in the last 30 years.

[@off6848]

Its anti physics yes. A vacuous vampire. Perhaps in a round about way it has discovered anti-gravity by putting a mental void in so many peoples mind.

[@williambranch4283]

Academic grifters

[@2LegHumanist]

People said the same about artificial neural networks until 2007.

[@bruceli9094]

Climate change is the new grift. As it was with String Theory.

[@pauldirc..]

​@@2LegHumanistwhat they said ?

[@seanneumann5790]

Thanks for hosting this discussion. Just a note that following the link to the full video (on the website) from within the KZbin app, features an extremely buggy media player. This creates a negative user experience.

[@kitkakitteh]

So, you have to work in string Theory, or you don’t work. It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes. I applaud Eric for his bravery in stating the obvious to people that have a vested interest in silencing it.

[@doesntmatter4477]

You are the perfect sucker that everyone within any group or institution relies on to be manipulated whenever there's a need for some public sheep to prop up or legitimize whatever corrupt project they're involved in at any given time. All they need is enough gullible people who believe anything at face value if u say it with confidence and use the right tone of voice or body language that they know will more than convince ur type every time

[@doesntmatter4477]

You are the perfect sucker that everyone within any group or institution relies on to be manipulated whenever there's a need for some public sheep to prop up or legitimize whatever corrupt project they're involved in at any given time. All they need is enough gullible people who believe anything at face value if u say it with confidence and use the right tone of voice or body language that they know will more than convince ur type every time

[@doesntmatter4477]

You are the perfect sucker that everyone within any group or institution relies on to be manipulated whenever there's a need for some public sheep to prop up or legitimize whatever corrupt project they're involved in at any given time. All they need is enough gullible people who believe anything at face value if u say it with confidence and use the right tone of voice or body language that they know will more than convince ur type every time

[@orwelgeorge8061]

Link to full video doesn’t work

[@rayhume1971]

Regardless of it's untestability, as long as people can pay their mortgages promoting String Theory, it will be something we have to hear about.

[@rodneynorfolk9737]

thank you

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

String theory doesn't make money, and it's not expensive to research. It's the most important theory physics has ever developed, it produced more insight into quantum gravity than anything that came before. The claims of people like Weinberg are pure fraud.

[@KarlKarsnark]

+1000 Internet Points for the "Eek-A-Mouse" reference! Also, correct on shilling this Snake Oil. As long as it sells, it will be sold.

[@paxdriver]

Space-time was un-testable too, until we got computers, and colliders and laser interferometers decades later. Same with atomic theory, chemistry, hell even machine learning was developed decades before we had multi-core CPUs never mind tensor core GPUs, FPGAs and TPUs. Point being: science is science until it is ruled out, not because of how we feel about it or until we get bored of trying to understand it. The biggest problem with populatizing theoretical physics as I see it (albeit the lesser evil) is conflating the every day world of "preference is MY truth and that's just as valid as objective observation" with science, which by definition aims to be impartial and strictly objective lest it be considered invalid unilaterally by default.

[@kalijasin]

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."-- Nikola Tesla

[@somethingawesome9547]

YES!

[@AliothAncalagon]

Tesla should have wandered through a few more equations, then he would have known from the start that his "lets charge up the entire atmosphere with these towers so we get a wireless electricity grid" was absolutely stupid.

[@MrBond0071984]

@ AliothAncalagon Yeah he was clearly a dummy🙄I look forward to seeing your many inventions, and contributions to better understanding and harnessing one of the most important forces in the universe.

[@AliothAncalagon]

@@MrBond0071984 Thats the core thing many laymen don't understand. They think a genius is a genius and thats that. Or that an idiot is an idiot and thats that. But thats not how this works. People aren't this consistent. Newton was a genius, when he came up with calculus. And he was a dumbass when he tried to find the philosophers stone. Einstein was a genius when he came up with general relativity. And he was a stubborn idiot, when he kept denying Quantum Mechanics. In the very same sense Tesla was a genius when he developed his induction motor. And he was a complete moron, when he fought against relativity, the emerging atomic model or, as I said, when he tried to come up with his wireless electricity grid.

[@vaibhavk2400]

No. This doesn’t apply to theoretical physics. As a physicist there is nothing worse than a bunch of people arguing what we are working on is wrong or useless without understanding so much as a single equation or a single paper.

[@richardabbot8724]

This is a particular example of a general, society wide problem. There are many disciplines where an elite has walled themselves off, creating only self-referential assertions.

[@Phasma6969]

There is another term for those who enjoy the odorous scent of primarily methane expelled from the rear.

[@TheBoogerJames]

*cough* economics *cough*

[@Bolaniullen]

Lack of bandwidth is the plague we all suffer too , constantly maxed out attention and a shriveling concentration span on top ! it's so over ... it's never been more over

[@geometerfpv2804]

It's not as self-referential as it might seem to you. There is a valid criticism here, but the scientific community has also been incredibly successful at actually making things work. So...I think it's a case of "this is the best system we have". Brian is right, you literally can't consider every theory. He wasn't exaggerating when he said it could take a month to understand someone's theory, and 99% of the time, you're wasting that time just to show that they were wrong in the end. That's why we focused on "credentialed" people. There needs to be some system to filter out all the stuff that would waste enormous amounts of time. This DOES lead to elitism and nepotism, yes, but what is the alternative? I don't think lay people really can understand what a massive investment it is to read a theory, even when you are an expert. This is a thing that takes hundreds and hundreds of hours to do. So, you have to be very careful about how you apply that time. Given that, are you going to read the next theory from the MIT guy famous for making good ones, or are you going to Eric Weinstein's "academia rejects my theory, but I'm telling you, it's correct!" theory. Keep in mind, it's a job. You have to publish accepted work to get hired and promoted, so it's not like you can afford a charity case. You'd probably do what we all do: read the person with credentials, because they are *likely* (not certain to) have something worth the time.

[@TheBoogerJames]

@geometerfpv2804 that's not how science works at all. You don't have to have a PhD to be correct.

[@PJM273]

Sir Roger's demeanor here while Eric is talking is just perfect. You can almost see the thought-bubble over his head - "I'd rather be doing science with scientists - or literally anything else for that matter - than be here."

[@spuriustadius5034]

Yep. I noticed. I guess he has finally realized what he got himself into. One would think that scientists at his level would have assistants that would warn about and prevent these situations from happening in the first place. But I guess not, maybe Penrose doesn't have anyone who can just tell him: "Dude, no, that's a bad idea."

[@alexgonzo5508]

Sir Roger had the same demeanor with Jordan Peterson in an interview i saw not too long ago.

[@CausallyExplained]

@@alexgonzo5508 I mean, JP is the true definition of moron.

[@markoates9057]

Eric yaking along, whining about why people don't take him seriously. That seems to be his whole vibe 90% of the time, along with spitting some occasional word salad for effect. Penrose knows exactly what's going on, and cant wait to gtfo this playground argument.

[@Novarcharesk]

Penrose has always been like this. This isn't related to this particular argument.

[@achiltsompanos447]

The comments about Kaku were pure gold!

[@Enkarashaddam]

He's out of control!

[@Cbart23]

I like how he memorizes his lecture/interview and repeats it like a parakeet on demand.

[@pn2543]

props to Sir Roger for sitting so patiently through all that

[@ryanellis424]

Having only had an amateur yotube physics education for many years, i almost understood this.. ..but my ego allowed me to feel proud for understanding it all😶

[@Ola-fh1er]

oh it was just a 10 minute sample? I am disappointed

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

The full video is in the description. It's free.

[@boutek]

@@Jacob-Vivimord it's not free

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

@@boutek Ah, right you are! They tricked me, the dirty dogs!

[@monasautes4665]

The link works now.

[@faceplants2]

@@boutek Seems like string theorists maintaining the walled garden yet again.

[@je8367]

This kind of content should be free to watch. Not charge people to see the full debate.

[@fityfive]

please, just put the whole thing up on youtube.

[@gregmark1688]

I think the more useful question is "Has string theory ever been successful as a model?" What has it ever successfully predicted?

[@evanliveshere]

it's a secret

[@Raydensheraj]

General Relativity emerges naturally in MTheory - just for example.

[@ok9176]

@@Raydensheraj that is by no means a validation of the theory. I can pull a theory out of a hat that somehow fixes the GR & quantum issue but doesn’t make it true at all. A theory has no evidence until there is experimental evidence and there is none for string theory.

[@karabomothupi9759]

@@ok9176 facts

[@sergeysmyshlyaev9716]

​@@Raydensheraj That's very interesting! Can you give a link to any papers/books to get familiar with how GR emerges in MTheory? In particular, I'm interested in whether MTheory say anything about gravitational waves having or not having mass.

[@VidHardt]

When I worked with Brian Greene on The Elegant Universe, I specifically and explicitly tried to help shape a book that was antithetical to Kaku's overstated approach: i.e., to stress that this first book of Brian's, at least, would emphasize the process of trying to discover a 'theory of everything' rather than ever explicitly state that strings/superstrings/M-theory was the likely solution to the underlying problems in physics. --Vid Hardt aka David Steinhardt

[@Traisas]

I read this book as a layman and found it quite understandable and balanced. Thank you for your good work!

[@88mphDrBrown]

I'm very skeptical of anyone so lazy their alias is just their name with half of the letters removed. If you're willing to take this sort of shortcut, one must wonder how many more shortcuts are you taking with your work? 🤔

[@das_it_mane]

@@88mphDrBrown that's just petty and rude.

[@drockopotamus1]

@@das_it_mane What's rude or petty about it? Have a bit of self-worth, hot damn. Want to be taken seriously? Act serious.

[@keshavglass6291]

@@88mphDrBrown 88mphDrBrown is that your real legal name? I better see it on a passport to take you seriously

[@Clintessential369]

This was just getting good! Well edited!

[@munso089]

Why not out the whole video on KZbin?

[@jaskbi]

Cutting edge scientific conversations behind a paywall, i dont know how i feel about that

[@JC-uk7tf]

I found the moment at 09:30 funny, where he clearly says something quite interesting and Sir Roger Penrose sort of wakes up and you can see him thoroughly considering this idea.

[@yaboyremo3657]

Absolutely noticed that too

[@gregorys5329]

@@jackalclone1 I don't know why so many people are repeating this, but it wasn't Penrose who wrote the paper. Kerr wrote the paper explaining why Penrose's original terminating geodesic argument is faulty. The same Kerr who solved the GR equation for the rotating black hole.

[@jackalclone1]

@@gregorys5329 ah shoot, you're absolutely correct. I was mixing up my famous physicists. I'll retract my other comment

[@HolyMith]

He perked up a bit because Weinstein is echoing a sentiment that he also holds. That being that forcing quantum rules on gravity is only part of the picture, if any at all. The quantum theories we have also need to be "gravitized". The tempting assumption is that, since QM deals with the smallest phenomena in the universe, then gravity must be an emergent phenomenon that arises out of that. But it may well be the case that the spacetime curvature depicted in GR may be a fundamental aspect of spacetime at the quantum level, and thus has to be treated with modified GR rules.

[@jareknowak8712]

When it was recorded?

[@knarfx4732]

Where can I watch this talks completely ?? Thank you

[@ibringthelastwords1358]

I personally believe in string or M theory. I believe in extra dimensions as the way the quantum mechanics works. It is safe to say that we cannot prove or disprove that theory with our current state of understanding and technology. Maybe in a hundred years from now that we have enough knowledge to prove that.

[@tbunreall]

@@loduk102 I personally don't think humans will ever fully understand the universe. We'll just never be advanced enough to test the things we need to.

[@douglasmurdoch7247]

Just realize that if you are so willing to exercise blind faith in something untestable, and ultimately unknowable, you should just turn to religion. It’s pure faith.

[@blengi]

it's almost like the cart is before the horse. String theory grandiosely presupposes the fundamental structure of things and hopes some magical constraints emerge down the line, whereas SR elaborates reality from the notion of invariance of C, GR the equivalence of acceleration and gravity, QM uncertainty principle and then constrains the underlying fabric of things. As classes of thought with respect to adducing the nature of things string theory seems to disconnect itself from deep intuitively compelling motivating principles which have previously created parsimony....

[@PhillyHardy]

8:00 this is where peer review comes in to play, if u are a mathematician, and ur friends with a physicist, communicate with each other and recommend certain new theories, and use the typical book hunt approach, I don’t read the whole book and try to expand if it rings true, I read the back cover, or I take a recommendation from a similar minded individual, appears communication has always been a weak point of the leaders in these fields , but it has gotten exponentially worse recently. And in the people who communicate well their basic understanding of math and science has plummeted as well, we all focus far too narrowly and limit our friend groups in and out the lab/office and mostly don’t socialize at all

[@KD0CAC]

Link is broken ????

[@paullb2440]

Please put full video on KZbin as there’s no captions on your website and I have hearing problems

[@Sycokay]

Has string theory actually ever accomplished anything? I mean besides giving mathematicians something to sink their teeth in.

[@MJ1]

Does that really matter? It hasn't accomplished much and maybe never will. There are many theories that couldn't be proven until technologies improved. We are impatient.

[@off6848]

@@MJ1 Dumb. If it can't produce actual work it is trash and fantasy. We need another Tesla or at the least to revisit Tesla's work which went completely ignored and falsely falsified by the same mean girl politics and pagentry that infects and stupifies physics today.

[@baTonkaTruck]

@@MJ1 Of course it matters. Spending time and effort should yield something valuable to society, that’s the POINT of science. Academics who think they can just faff around in an echo chamber providing NO valuable theories to drive engineering/products, NOR producing comprehensible ideas to expand society’s understanding, are a complete waste, and should be walked out of academia and into the gutter where they belong.

[@ankansenapati3600]

​@@MJ1relativity just proved right now

[@mathematicalmonk1427]

@@MJ1 I don't think the problem is impatience the problem is how string theory has consumed all of physics that young researchers are sort of forced into it .

[@ripping]

The paywall for the full debate blows. But after listening to the first 5 minutes I was debating if I could handle any more of that baroque background music anyway.

[@ViralKiller]

It's not going to work because they expect 1 elegant formula like e=mc^2. Steve Wolfram and AI in general has shown us that the solution is going to be closer to a Machine learning model than a formula

[@jakubjodlowski8416]

Please give us the whole episode 🙏

[@extremelyunfocusedman]

They won't, iai turned into a subscription based KZbin lure

[@physiqueDrummond]

I want to see physicists fighting in a jello wrestling pool, not debating on zoom.

[@keep-ukraine-free528]

Eric Weinstein sounds extremely frustrated that his attacks get ignored. He's been trying to convince us that his frustration is important. We're not buying it, Eric. If a theory can't yet show empirical data, it says nothing about its validity. Many prior ideas in physics couldn't be experimentally demonstrated - for years. String theory explains a large group of conundrums in physics that nothing else explains. It shouldn't be discarded simply based on frustrations (and unreasonable expectations that it hasn't progressed "fast enough").

[@pi1392]

Forget about the string theory. Why does Weinstein dye his hair jet-black lol

[@Cant_find_good_Handle]

Another concern is that string theory might prove to be true, but we might have missed a good theory somewhere in-between the current testable theory’s of quantum mechanics and relativity and the currently untestable string theory. At least with todays experiments. We could be missing out on a lot of technological advancement. Chemistry and Newtonian physics are good approximations of the universe but relativity and quantum mechanics were needed for nuclear bombs and gravitational lensing telescopes. I would be happy with some kind of quirky theory that combines relativity and quantum mechanics but requires a bunch of charts of constants you have to interpret from. I guess I would like to see some kind of faster than light travel be either invented or proven to be false with a much greater certainty than today.

[@shadowkille8r99]

What?? How is chemistry a "good approximation" of the universe when all that theoretical chemists work on is quantum mechanics? The rest of the chemistry field doesn't even attempt to "approximate" the universe, so what are you even on about???????

[@christophersmith4059]

I have been waiting for this. Just started watching and I am excited.

[@beretman27]

It feels like a lot of this is skirting around and sometimes dipping into the question of the ethics and/or politics of science and the applications of it in the post-academic realms of activity. The A-bomb exploded this terrain open and now it seems largely forgotten that there should be serious social discussion on the merits of how much funding and attention certain théories or programmes of research receive. Or at least of the kind of attention.

[@birjisafroz8886]

👏👏👏

[@paxdriver]

Eric Weinstein didn't have time to check out the only scientific critique of his own unified theory, but he had the time to do dozens of podcasts over the last 10 years complaining about other scientists not doing science and ignoring his work - which is totally scientific lol. "there is no reciprocal interest because this community simply thinks it is smarter than other communities...." I love listening to Eric, he's a smart guy no doubt. Entertaining fellow too, provocative thinker in many cases; but his hypocrisy is starting to really get under my skin. It's hard to respect such a whiner when he just won't stop with his fantasy ego trip about the "cabal of PhDs out to get him". This must be what it was like for friends of Nietzsche watching a brilliant mind descend into psychosis... It's terribly sad real physicists keep giving him a platform despite his fans clamouring for years to get Eric to restart his briefly sensational podcast.

[@tarico4436]

I did like his podcast.

[@yeezythabest]

You're spot on! And Brian Greene is really the wrong person to address all this to.

[@TheBillyonepunch]

Maybe he’s waiting for proofs of the criticisms? Although, I concede, that goes both ways..

[@ChrisMissal]

Eric is always chasing the car, but doesn't have the interpersonal skills to collaborate

[@logicbomb8977]

Eric literally admits he might be wrong…and has done so on numerous occasions. No string theorist has ever said that

[@murrethmedia]

My feeling is whether String Theory ultimately ends up being correct or incorrect is irrelevant, we should continue working on it if for no other reason than to eliminate it as one of the many possibilities that exist, if in fact it isn't correct. We learn more from our failures than our successes.

[@backpain100]

I agree, but the issue is that the manpower/brainpower funding that it takes away from other possibly viable theories. I think that's the point of contention.

[@CharisMR]

Totally agree, I hadn't thought about it in this way and you are certainly right.

[@MargotDobbie]

That is moronic

[@TurdFerguson456]

Eggs...actly

[@worker-wf2em]

How do you eliminate a theory when those who cling to it continually move the goal posts?

[@REX-HOMINIS-THE-GAME]

The graviton is not a commodifiable thing. Once it is discovered, it will also be discovered that for those that doubted it's existence, that they should stay far away from it because it implies delving into bottomless depths of power, for which humanity as a whole is simply not ready to reap and turn... into a commodity.

[@TheTricksterFigure]

This reminded me of Plato's "allegory of the cave", you can't see anything as long as you stay inside the cave, but it's also comfortable to stay in the familiarity of the cave, at the same time that comfort reduces the desire to go out and explore, therfore hindering potential for development.

[@Custodian123]

It will be exciting when AI is advanced enough to act as a co-pilot to go through other thesis. People wont have the excuse that they dont have time.

[@redacted5052]

Brian Greene ignited my passion for physics; Eric turned it into a small inferno.

[@JDHURF]

I'm curious to know how Weinstein distinguishes between harmonizing gravity and quantizing gravity. I read that as synonymous. Harmonizing gravity from Einstein's General Relativity to the quantum mechanic level is precisely what string theory is working on.

[@VipulAnand751]

Why Michio kaku missing from the conversation?

[@lfaizaanl]

Because He and Eric would've been throwing hands at each other

[@vonBottorff]

I think BG summed it up perfectly. People are literally talking past one another because who has the capacity to truly understand _two_ massively complex theories? In my former field, CS, we argue about programming languages. Same thing: Nobody is really a master of two competing programming paradigms, thus, no one person can really objectively decide which is truly better.

[@FerrisMcLauren]

Computer languages aren't inherently better than one another. They have different uses. I wouldn't javascript to write an efficient large language model just as I wouldn't use geometry to give me the probability of two events happening. String Theory may possibly be totally inherently wrong and completely useless just as the theory of flat earth. To say you don't have time to look into multiple theories is ridiculous given that Eric has done just that.

[@vonBottorff]

@@FerrisMcLauren If Eric W has turly dived the depths of Edward Witten's analyses, then Eric W wins. However, I don't think he has. Otherwise, he would have attacked ST at the technical level more precisely. ST is wholly derived from math, and math has always been the workhorse of physics. I don't follow the arguments of these people who now want to throw shade on math as a "pointless pursuit of elegance." Show me exactly where Witten's math diverges from solid physics and I'll shut up. Witten took the ball Feynman carried and took it much farther. Apparently too far without PR backup. Both Einstein and Feynman had excellent PR, but not Witten. Alas for the human factor.

[@RokeJulianLockhart.s13ouq]

@@FerrisMcLauren A language can definitely be better than another. Usually two good languages are different and complex enough that whether one is superior in a certain circumstance is difficult to ascertain, at least initially, but some languages are just worse than others. Nobody wants to build apps in VBScript, for instance. Many liked VB6, which it was derived from, but VBScript is neutered by only being executable from Microsoft 365/Office filetypes. VBScript supports 64-bit compilation whereas VB6 doesn't, but that's a feature of its proprietary 1st-party compiler rather than the language.

[@doyouwanttogivemelekiss3097]

​@@vonBottorff I may be too dumb for this. I just get SH's point. First of all, it should be about who makes measurable predictions while explaining known measurements. Then it should be about how many (or few) ad hoc parameters you put in to get how many predictions out. Fewer wins. On both counts I don't see either doing well. So to me, the debate is basically between two men arguing about the number of angels dancing on a needle.

[@off6848]

@@vonBottorff God you people are so wrong and off its sad. "Math the work horse of physics" is probably the most foolish statement and sentiment of the century. Its so funny because Tesla could tell you what a electromagnetic field IS and the "math is the workhorse" guys can only ever tell you what it isn't aka quantized vs qualitative. Feynman was an absolute moron the dude could not explain how a magnet works or what an EM field IS, he could only describe it in terms of quantity and or area of effect. We are being led by the biggest morons on earth they're worse than ignorant or those lacking in knowledge they've created dumb junk nonsense knowledge which covers their ability to see like a blanket of stupidity.

[@glovere2]

This is one of those videos where the comment section is at least as interesting as the video. The comments are helpful for non-physicists by contextualizing some of the material. They teach you some of the history of this argument and fill in the details of the various players. It feels like time well spent for anyone interested in the topic who might not be a string theorist.

[@alonzovillarreal4666]

Very enjoyable debate

[@denishclarke4470]

My favorite physicist just listening to these people arguing on string theory. Isn't it lovely

[@aaronaragon7838]

Brian Greene is one of the great explicators of our Age.

[@steve8510]

I don't think we should pick on him for his grooming habits.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

He’s a huckster and a fraud

[@Piernic]

Brian Greene is a thug.

[@george_smiff]

What a great discussion/debate. I like how all of the guests can agree and disagree on things without letting their emotions take over

[@alokkanswal4403]

Truth is important. Whichever theory will give it will be accepted

[@mistake920]

And the full debate video is behind a pay-wall?

[@eveningstarnm3107]

Anyone who was listening lost interest in string theory in the 2000s, but we still let Brian Greene have his Nova special. Our corporate media cares less about giving us good information information than it does about making a profit.

[@aaron2709]

You think PBS is 'making a profit'?

[@mostlysunny582]

@@aaron2709 No, but they don't mind extra government as well as outside funding. PBS is not for profit, but they can definitely be used as tool to generate profits for their biggest interest or donors.

[@nosuchthing8]

People have an interest in physics. BG has always made clear that until string theory makes some testable predictions, it's basically religion.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

I need to know Granpa Roger's thoughts during this

[@ronking5103]

I find it telling that there was a time, not very long ago in objective science; in which if your ideas didn't confine themselves to the principles of the scientific method. They were not only ignored, but they were also treated with a derision typically only held for claims of faith. That the realms of objective science were no place to speculate. Prove it or go do something else instead. This was certainly the case with MWI. Everett was shut down to such a degree, he left the field entirely. The past generation of objective study seems to have forgotten the lessons of the Copernicus Revolution. We separate that which we can talk about objectively, from that which requires subjective interpretation. One is science, the other is belief. Until belief is shown to provide a more accurate model of reality; It should *never* be considered objective science.

[@turdbooger6051]

I find the most frustrating thing is being taught that in science theory does not preclude to an idea as in other fields of inquiry. Theory is above laws, principle and facts. Theory of relativity, theory of evolution… but then we get string theory… then we get physicists saying I don’t have time to go through every “theory”. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@Blake_47]

I don't know if muchio kaku has put anything up 😂😂😂 Only Roger Penrose on this panel is a serious and decent Physicsict and Mathematician.

[@eloiinvestigates]

Holy moly, he went there. He made the 'perma jobs for boomers' point.

[@CalvinHikes]

Eric has been strangely mad about this subject for quite some time and I'm sure he's pleased to get a platform to argue against it.

[@drockopotamus1]

@@hugogrotius3323 lol wrong on vague "other stuff". Good to know, I guess?

[@lukekelly5115]

​@@CalvinHikeshow much bigger platform than Rogan does one need? Its very surface level but certainly comes right out and says the same thing. An obscene amount of people have listened to it.

[@puretone4970]

@@lukekelly5115 He wants recognition from his (assumed) peers. Lack of recognition from his peers is exactly what is driving his hate of science. He has never stopped to think that maybe he isn't getting any recognition because he isn't presenting anything useful. Sure, he can impress lay audiences with vague allusions to some deeper understanding... Especially the Rogan kind of audience, but he isn't doing anything that is impressing physicists or other scientifically minded people.

[@____uncompetative]

@@puretone4970 You don't know what you are talking about.

[@avadhutd1403]

Please provide full video I am unable to subscribe on your website Could you please provide same on KZbin Lot of students want to listen but unable to pay or don't have credit to pay for it So in Name of physics please provide full video Request from Global South 🤠

[@Trizzer89]

It doesnt sound like unpleasantness is in a bell curve in this community. Brian definitely never collected data on that hypothesis

[@TheBillyonepunch]

Is it just me, or is it amazing that the great Roger Penrose is almost falling asleep during this fervent exchange? 🤣

[@off6848]

Dude is old and beyond the BS its really to be expected if anything.

[@TheVicar]

@@off6848 He's clearly switched off from the discussion and is trying to work out how to kill all the dandelions in his garden, once and for all A solution that has evaded mankind for centuries

[@off6848]

@@TheVicar Hire children to make flower crowns for old ladies

[@fullyverified7491]

Dudes 92 give him a break lol

[@bettyeldridge]

If you have time take time to read the Constructor Theory paper that was awarded the Nobel prize. The words are so far from normal language that after reading and re-reading that paper and other papers that came up in the readings , well my 91 years old brain and my aged body trembled and my mind was truely boggled. Arthur H. Compton was the quantum physicist whose work was in the headlines when I was born January 2, 1932 Who benefited from his work? Me, I did....gamma rays must do some thing?

[@ronking5103]

I think if you look at what Wolfram is doing with his computational models of physics, you'll find a lot of what Deutsch was proposing. An informational basis that describes possible states of reality, vs not-possible states of reality.

[@bettyeldridge]

@@ronking5103 I have no degree but I read a lot and I was amused when I read a mention of the constructor theory . The theory as it was described defined the meaning of the theory as simple:: Anything that seems impossible becomes possible when new information is found. I looked for the definition of a word in the theory : " ergodic › Wikipedia Ergodic theory is a branch of mathematics that studies statistical properties of deterministic dynamical systems; it is the study of ergodicity. In this context, "statistical properties" refers to properties which are expressed through the behavior of time averages of various functions along trajectories of dynamical systems. The notion of deterministic dynamical systems assumes that the equations determining the dynamics do not contain any random perturbations, noise, etc. Thus, the statistics with which we are concerned are properties of the dynamics. Ergodic theory, like probability theory, is based on general notions of measure theory. Its initial development was motivated by problems of statistical physics." Well isn't the word impossible to apply any meaning to because statistics are never exact. Its a word that I HATE passionately, for some reason I've never understood. I have hated the way statistics are gathered and used in science as truth . mathematics can't be generalized, infinity can't be specific, not ever.

[@fullyverified7491]

That's amazing your reading these things at 91!

[@enriquea.fonolla4495]

its amazing she can comment on YT at that age.@@fullyverified7491

[@zachmorgan6982]

If Ed Witten says string theory Is at LEAST on the right track because under some models many mathematical problems get solved magically. As he said " My thought process is that doesn't happen when you're on the complete wrong track

[@czarquetzal8344]

I decided to coin this phrase: speculative physics .

[@custodioarmindogungulo8465]

Brian, always humble as it should be.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Sir Penrose. A legend.

[@GdarkWoW]

And I go to the link and there is a paywall great, putting a price tag on this while you have all of the people in the video talking in length on YT for free.

[@ErnestoGomezSantan]

The Large Hadron Collider failled to produce neutralinos when they should have been produced, according to theory. That evidence of absence put in question the hypothesis of supersymmetry, which in turn put in question superstrings, which in turn put in question, of course, M - Theory.

[@jamesphilip4402]

Michio Kaku is out of control!

[@andybaldman]

Lol

[@cristianproust]

True, but he is old as dirt. Not particularly unusual

[@florencebaendes2853]

You said it because he is Asian. If he was white then we would see different sentiment lmfao

[@vaibhavk2400]

@@florencebaendes2853 No one except Penrose is a real physicist here for that matter

[@themanofshadows]

@@florencebaendes2853Bullshit

[@skybry320]

So it's just a small clip and essentially an advert for your site.

[@TheVicar]

wow

[@Harry_Tick]

As long as grants are to be had, research will continue. Getting grants, not discovery, is the name of the game.

[@vincentrusso4332]

Eric wants to talk mannerisms while Brian wants to talk physics and math... while Sabine says shut up and calculate.

[@CharlesDeMar]

It’s not about bearing fruit, it’s about funding.

[@nosuchthing8]

No, bearing fruit too

[@GeneralSulla]

I'm not afraid of being wrong, I'm afraid of repeating that wrong on a consistent basis. My parents called that acting foolish.

[@ztdaddy2319]

As a non-scientist, I remember Michio Kaku in the 1980's going on his radio show week after week evangelizing string theory, and doomsaying the dangers of nuclear power. Now two generations have passed, and string theory appears to have bogged down in a predictable tar pit and people are awakening to the idea that nuclear power is the best option for safe carbon-free power.

[@josewales892]

i love a respectful debate, i wish our politicians behaved the same. i pour concrete for a living and have no idea what they are talking about but i loves this stuff. i have some ideas too but i do t know how to turn it into a formula. what blows me away is thinking that each and every one of us are constructed of billions upon billions of atoms, each and every one is non sentient but when arranged in just the right way, they become conscious and believe they are living. i think the whole universe is alive.

[@rasiriusmgmt5854]

At this level of scientific exploration making equipments, machines, observations and breakthroughs is very long term, if initiated now

[@rickyrennocks4457]

After studying string theory and researching the people who created the thesis, I firmly belive string theory is a road to nowhere designed to send physicists down a never ending road to nowhere.

[@collinsmcrae]

Yeah. Sure ya have.

[@MicahPotts]

I don't disagree, but WHY would they do that??

[@rickyrennocks4457]

@@MicahPotts to keep the biggest secret of our lifetimes!

[@AdamTait-hy2qh]

When looking for competent explanations of things, never ask Eric Weinstein.

[@pcproffy]

Hold on, let me give you a 50 minute explanation to a 5 minute problem.

[@pookz3067]

How else will he be able to editorialize and overdramatize things in order to tell you how to think?

[@nosuchthing8]

BG is a genius and I respect him and his work. But his opening statement is a doozy. If you spend most of your time on X, then you should see multiple ideas about X. Its like trying to defend people that worked on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin because they improved book binding technique to capture all that nonsense.

[@MaggieMae-cv6xq]

Empirically we're seeing this geometry everywhere. Fine tuning. Who's tuning this instrument. I want to know the Grand Architect.

[@TurdFerguson456]

Eric also seems to get his feelings hurt way too often by everyone

[@erichaynes7502]

It does look like we've hit a roadblock, I propose we build a "Unified Field Theory Laboratory" where prominent theorists from around the world meet/work/live so all the major theory's can be proposed, reviewed, tested, displayed, discussed, etc. This will not only be for the prominent theorists but also for the up and coming PhD's in fundamental/mathematical/quantum/theoretical physics. Included should be a large auditorium where the public can be engaged as well. UFTL!

[@TheVicar]

Fight off arena!

[@lukekelly5115]

Can definitely tell that although he his polite he certainly believes whole heartedly that they can't be wrong about string theory, that may be the problem, so smart you've convinced yourself blind of any alternative.

[@Bitchslapper316]

This was a great debate. I wish I understood it.

[@philiphodgesnz]

"Michio Kaku is out of Control!" ;-)

[@rainguynw]

As I have said before, Eric Weinstein can take a simple concept of physics and make it incomprehensible in five minutes or less. Although it usually takes him 20 minutes.😊

[@markcarey67]

Totally - I remember at one point on another stream he had me thinking I didn't understand what a fiber bundle was but then I went back and looked it up and, nah, it was exactly what I originally thought it was - It's the opposite of science communication.

[@ElSoMbRiO19]

He is just saying that there is a clear tribalistic bias, almost religious in the physics comunity. Either youre part of the "cool guys" with the string theory that happens to not have give it ANY real use to society bc after 70 years the theory is not complete or either youre part of the "dumb guys" wich is basically every other physician. In result, hundreds and hundreds of really intelligent people carrers are being throw in a volcano bc the string community is so proudly blind that they cannot NEVER admit that maybe the string theory is just a whole missconception.

[@Carfeu]

Just word salad to look smart

[@BT-kc3ee]

Weinstein is incredibly pompous

[@davidevans2810]

Yeah, so the other player for the extended version is horrible and I’ve literally could not complete watching the video. Thanks.